1994 (4) TMI 376 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transactions in question were made in the course of inter-State trade and commerce.
2. Whether the Board of Revenue misconstrued the provisions of law and failed to consider the material available before the assessing authority and appellate authority.
3. Applicability of the notification dated December 31, 1975, under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
4. Levy of interest and penalty by the assessing authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter-State Trade and Commerce:
The primary issue was whether the transactions of sending goods to M/s. S.S. Metal Enterprises and Metal Rod (Pvt.) Ltd., Delhi, were sales effected during the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle IV, Jaipur, held that these transactions were inter-State sales, and the provisional assessment declared a sum of Rs. 1,19,48,583.67 payable by the company. The assessee filed an appeal, which was rejected, leading to a revision petition before the Board of Revenue.

2. Misconstruction of Law and Consideration of Material:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the Board of Revenue's findings were perverse, as it misconstrued the provisions of law and ignored material evidence. The counsel contended that the assessment was lawful because the movement of goods was in pursuance of a contract of sale. The Board of Revenue, however, concluded that the transactions were not inter-State sales, as the goods were sent in bulk without reference to a particular buyer and were stored in depots before being sold.

3. Notification under Section 8(5) of Central Sales Tax Act:
The petitioner argued that the notification dated December 31, 1975, was misinterpreted by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that cathode and wire bars are separately identifiable commercial commodities and do not fall under section 8(5), thus liable to be taxed at the normal rate. The Board of Revenue's analysis concluded that the notification was correctly applied, and the disputed sales were not inter-State trade.

4. Levy of Interest and Penalty:
The assessing authority levied interest and imposed a penalty, raising a total demand of Rs. 2,10,67,801.43. The Board of Revenue held that the interest could not have been levied as the burden of proof was satisfactorily discharged by the non-petitioner through the production of form F. The Board of Revenue noted that the non-petitioner had produced form F, and the assessing authority did not establish that the declaration was false. Thus, the non-petitioner was not liable for the tax on alleged inter-State sales.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision, concluding that the transactions were not inter-State sales and the notification under section 8(5) was correctly applied. The interest and penalty levied by the assessing authority were also deemed inappropriate. Consequently, both revision petitions were dismissed, and the order of the Board of Revenue was affirmed. The petitions were dismissed with costs made easy.